Retired Disabled Veterans need your help, or buddy can you spare a minute or two? Attention: VetsCoR

WASHINGTON, D.C. -- It's been a lousy summer for President George W. Bush. Republican leaders are grousing that he isn't doing enough to keep GOP control of the House. Defense Secretary Don Rumsfeld has his arm in a cast, and the Pentagon press corps is beating him up because we can't find Osama's body. Diplomatic correspondents are howling that the president isn't tough enough on Israel. The business press blames him for the stock market collapse and for being soft on corporate crooks. And now the gossip columnists are piling on over the length of his vacation. No wonder the man wants to spend a month in Crawford. But while he's at the ranch, he had better phone Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Director Mitch Daniels or it could get even worse. If he doesn't, some of his most fervent supporters will start re-thinking their loyalty.

Who are they? America's soldiers, sailors, airmen, Marines, veterans and military retirees. The troops' lament: broken promises.

Here's the problem. When he was campaigning for commander in chief, Bush habitually said things like: "To the veteran, we owe gratitude -- shown not just in words of tribute, but in acts of care and attention. ... As president, I will work with Congress to raise the standard of service -- not just for veterans, but for our military retirees. All of them must be treated with the care they have been promised and the dignity they have earned."

Gov. Bush spoke those words to the American Legion in Milwaukee, Wisc., on Sept. 6, 2000, and replicated them throughout his campaign. America's military and veteran families -- more than 26 million of them -- heard and believed. And overwhelmingly, they voted for him -- as was evident after dimpled chads and absentee ballots became big issues in Florida. Many military and veteran families believe that if it weren't for them, George W. Bush wouldn't be president. And they may be right.

To his credit, Bush continued his courtship of veterans after his inaugural. At a Memorial Day breakfast in the East Room on May 28, 2001, he said: "America's veterans ask only that government honor its commitments as they honored theirs. They ask that their interests be protected, as they protected their country's interest in foreign lands. In all matters of concern to veterans -- from health care to program funding -- you have my pledge that those commitments will be kept. My administration will do all it can to assist our veterans and to correct oversights of the past." Great stuff. Too bad that this week the Bush administration's budget boss, OMB Director Mitch Daniels, made all those promises appear hollow.

The issue, like so much else in the federal government, is a little-known inequity with an arcane moniker: "concurrent receipt," a provision of law that prohibits retired military veterans from drawing full retirement checks if they also receive a disability payment. What it means is that those who suffer a disabling wound defending our country will be financially punished if they somehow manage to stay in the armed forces long enough to retire. Sound nuts? It is.

In the interest of full disclosure, let me make this personal. During my 22 years in the Marines, I wasn't always quick or agile enough to get out of the way when our nation's enemies were doing bad things. My fellow Marines pinned a couple of purple hearts on my uniform to remind others of my clumsiness.

When I got around to retiring in 1988, a Navy doctor wrote up a long report describing various wounds and injuries. The Department of Veteran's Affairs took the doctor's evaluation and decided that the damage was worth about $450 per month. What I didn't understand at the time was the ingenious way our government had of paying me roughly $5,400 per year. It comes out of my own pocket. Every month, my retirement check is reduced by precisely the amount of my disability payment. And that's exactly how it's done for roughly 550,000 other disabled, retired veterans.

No one would dare to reduce retirement benefits for postal workers with hernias from hoisting mailbags. Nor would anyone in Congress have the temerity to suggest that Civil Service employees forfeit a portion of their retirement checks to pay for on-the-job injuries like carpal tunnel syndrome. Only those who do the dirty and dangerous work of defending this nation suffer this indignity -- the very ones who believed the president's promise that, "My administration understands America's obligations not only to those who wear the uniform today, but to those who wore the uniform in the past -- our veterans."

Unfortunately, the deficit hawks in Bush's Office of Management and Budget are now ignoring this "obligation" (his word, not mine) because fixing the problem is too expensive. The Congressional Budget Office estimates it would cost approximately $2 billion in fiscal year 2003. Of course, bloated deficits haven't stopped Congress from padding its own payrolls or stuffing 8,341 pork-barrel projects, estimated by Citizens Against Government Waste at $20 billion, in this year's 13 appropriations bills.

What's worse, the Rumsfeld Pentagon doesn't seem to grasp that this punitive policy has an unquantifiable adverse effect on retention and combat effectiveness. Do we really want a military force led by risk-averse, desk-bound officers and NCOs who avoid the possibility of getting wounded because they don't want to financially punish their families?

Bush has said, "Veterans are a priority for this administration." He had better make those in his administration believe it because veterans also believe that old axiom, "You can't just talk the talk -- you have to walk the walk."

House and Senate conferees will meet to consider legislation that would make fiscal 2003 appropriations for defense programs.

An original bill making appropriations for the Department of Defense for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2003, and for other purposes.

Inouye, Hollings, Byrd, Leahy, Harkin, Dorgan, Durbin, Reid, Feinstein, Kohl, Stevens, Cochran, Specter, Domenici, Bond, McConnell, Shelby, Gregg, Hutchison

Lewis of Calif., Young of Fla., Skeen, Hobson, Bonilla, Nethercutt, Cunningham, Frelinghuysen, Tiahrt, Murtha, Dicks, Sabo, Visclosky, Moran of Va., Obey

Inouye (202) 224-6747,
Hollings (202) 224-4293
Byrd (202) 228-0002,
Leahy (202) 224-3479,
Harkin (202) 224-9369,
Dorgan (202) 224-1193,

Durbin (202) 228-0400,
Reid (202) 224-4680,
Feinstein (202) 228-3954,
Kohl (202) 224-9787,

Stevens (202) 224-2354,
Cochran (202) 224-9450,
Specter (202) 228-1229,
Domenici (202) 228-0900,

Bond (202) 224-8149,
McConnell (202) 224-2499,
Shelby (202) 224-3416,
Gregg (202) 224-4952,

Lewis of Calif. (202) 225-6498,
Young of Fla. (202) 225-9764,
Skeen (202) 225-9599,
Hobson(202)225-1984,
Bonilla (202) 225-2237,
Nethercutt (202) 225-3392,
Cunningham (202) 225-2558,
Frelinghuysen (202) 225-3186,
Tiahrt (202) 225-3489,
Murtha (202) 225-5709,
Dicks (202) 226-1176 ,
Sabo (202) 225-4886,
Visclosky (202) 225-2493,
Moran of Va. (202) 225-0017,
Obey (715) 842-4488

This answers your question as to why DOD is opposed to CR.

For more info go to crlegislation.com and Uniformed Services Disabled Retires

The following is a copy of the letter Rep. Michael Bilirakis sent to an Assistant Secretary of Defense as a rebuttal to ASD Abell's position on concurrent receipt. Rep. Bilirakis, the House champion of concurrent receipt is also sending President Bush a similar letter. We applaud and thank Rep. Bilirakis and Ms. Rebecca Hyder, his Legislative Assistant, for their hard work and unparalleled perseverance on behalf of the disabled military retired community.

October 1, 2002
The Honorable Charles Abell
Assistant Secretary of Defense (Force Management Policy)
Department of Defense
The Pentagon
Washington, D.C. 20301-1155

Dear Secretary Abell:

As you know, I am the chief proponent of the concurrent receipt issue in the House of Representatives. I saw an article by James Garamone on concurrent receipt posted on the American Forces Press Service. I was quite disappointed by some of the comments and arguments raised by you and the Department of Defense in the article.

According to the article, "DOD research shows that the small number veterans who would benefit from such a repeal are already doing well financially." Based on my contacts with disabled military retirees over the last 17 years, I question the validity of that statement. Since I first began working on this issue, I have heard from thousands of disabled retirees who are negatively impacted by the current offset and are struggling to get by each month. Some of these retirees have been forced to undertake drastic measures, such as selling their homes, in order to meet their monthly obligations. For many of them, their retired pay amounts to less than $1,000 per month. In many of these cases, the amount of the VA offset exceeds the retiree's total retired pay, meaning the individual receives none of the retired pay from the Department of Defense that they have rightfully earned. Even with their VA disability compensation, most of these individuals had total monthly incomes of $1,000 or less, and I seriously doubt that any of these retirees would consider themselves "doing well financially."

Moreover, the Department of Defense has already acknowledged that its studies on retiree income included very few severely disabled retirees. This omission undermines the credibility of the Department's studies. Furthermore, these studies relied on total household income, including spousal income and other outside income sources. Outside income sources have no bearing on whether or not a military retiree is entitled to receive his or her retired pay -- retirement income earned with 20 years or more of loyal service to our nation.

I also believe that your assertion that if concurrent receipt passes "1.2 million veterans could qualify" for extra payments is blatantly misleading. Previous cost estimates based on data provided by the Departments of Defense and Veterans Affairs show that about 550,000 disabled retirees would qualify if a full concurrent receipt plan were enacted into law. Undoubtedly a change in the current law will encourage additional members to apply for a disability rating. However, speculation that an additional 700,000 retirees might apply for and be granted disability ratings is simply overreaching. It is highly improbable that this many retirees would even apply, much less be approved, for VA disability compensation.

Finally, your argument that funding for concurrent receipt will hurt current servicemembers is also misleading. Members of Congress are cognizant of the sacrifices military service entails. Neither I nor any of my colleagues would suggest that other personnel funding be cut to pay for concurrent receipt, and the enactment of a concurrent receipt provision won't negatively impact military readiness. If there were any question that my legislation to eliminate the current offset between military retired pay and VA disability compensation would have such a negative impact, I sincerely doubt that it would have garnered the support of more than 90 percent of the House of Representatives and 80 percent of the Senate.

Moreover, earlier this year, I worked very hard with the members of the House Budget Committee to provide the funding needed to begin the elimination of the current offset so that readiness would not be negatively impacted by our actions. I take great offense at the insinuations that I or my fellow Members of Congress do not support the brave men and women currently serving in our Armed Forces.

Secretary Abell, I would remind you of a quote by our first Commander-in-Chief George Washington: "The willingness with which our young people are likely to serve in any war, no matter how justified, shall be directly proportional to how they perceive the veterans of earlier wars were treated and appreciated by their nation." At a time when our Nation is calling upon our Armed Forces to defend democracy and freedom, we must be careful not to send the wrong signal to our military service members. For those of them who have selected to make their career in the U.S. military, they face an additional unknown risk in our fight against terrorism. If they are injured, they will be forced to forego their earned retired pay in order to receive their VA disability compensation. In effect, they will be paying for their own disability benefits from their retirement checks.

I strongly urge you and the Department of Defense to end your misleading rhetoric against concurrent receipt, do what is right, and support the elimination of the current offset.

Sincerely yours,
Michael Bilirakis
Member of Congress

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.